Artificial intelligence is an important next step for humanity— Google CEO Sundar Pichai calls it more profound than electricity or fire—but like every technological leap, it comes with downsides, and not all of them related to Skynet-style robot revolutions.

You might have heard about AI and machine learning techniques being used to create fake celebrity porn recently. It was initially reported by Motherboard last month, who noted that a Redditor called deepfakes was using open-source libraries to replace the faces of actresses in hardcore porn videos with those of famous Hollywood stars.

The faces of Scarlett Johansson, Maisie Williams, Taylor Swift, Aubrey Plaza, and Gal Gadot were all inserted into the adult movies, and while there is a slight uncanny valley effect, the final product can be convincing.

The videos led to the appearance of a new app, called FakeApp, which is based on deepfakes’ software. Not only does it improve on the original but it also allows anyone to create the fake videos, thanks to its ease of use and extensive tutorial.

Many of these videos and instructions on how to create them were being shared in a user group, also called deepfakes, on the gaming-focused chat service Discord. But after it was contacted by Business Insider, the company closed it down. Discord said the group, which had at least 150 members, violated rules on non-consensual pornography, which “warrants an instant shut down on the servers whenever we identify it, as well as a permanent ban on the users."

"We have investigated these servers and shut them down immediately," a Discord representative told the publication.

Reddit groups where the edited videos are being shared and discussed are still up. In one post, a user talks about technology that could allow creators to add custom dialogue to the clips using the Hollywood stars’ own voices.

Well, the issue of porn aside, this software could make for some very interesting times in the very near future... Can I take the video of Nixon saying "I am not a crook" and replace it with Donald Trump? Can I get Magic Johnson to make Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech?

Is there a rule for non-consensual videoing? And if not, how long until there is...

Is there a rule for non-consensual videoing? And if not, how long until there is...

Possibilities are endless...

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a law though if the sources were used correctly in the first place. Placing a digital likeness on another actors/actresses head doesn't place that person in the scene. Selling it commercially, profiting without securing rights to the likeness, etc. are already covered by current laws.

What the group was doing was distasteful I agree that discord should be able to have a policy stricter than the law provides. Rules for services don't require a basis in law but the law should be based on something greater than the hurt feelings or outrage of celebrities.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps stars could could be allowed to "copyright their faces", so that inserting their face into a video they didn't consent to, would be a DCMA violation, allowing the injured party to seek damages, perhaps ranging into the millions.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps stars could could be allowed to "copyright their faces", so that inserting their face into a video they didn't consent to, would be a DCMA violation, allowing the injured party to seek damages, perhaps ranging into the millions.

An added clause here or there wouldn't hurt anything, or change the current structure, screwed up, or otherwise.

Methinks, if it were your wife, daughter, or sister, being painted into hard core porn scenes, you wouldn't be here running your yap about the current state of copyright law, but downtown begging the court for an injunction to stop it.

An added clause here or there wouldn't hurt anything, or change the current structure, screwed up, or otherwise.

Methinks, if it were your wife, daughter, or sister, being painted into hard core porn scenes, you wouldn't be here running your yap about the current state of copyright law, but downtown begging the court for an injunction to stop it.

Click to expand...

I would probably fight in court, but that doesn't make involving copyrights into a defamation case any less stupid. Because while it might be sane and proper to protect people from such situations with the power of law, linking it with copyright is just insane and it would do wrong to both IP law and defamation-/bullying-related law.

I would probably fight in court, but that doesn't make involving copyrights into a defamation case any less stupid. Because while it might be sane and proper to protect people from such situations with the power of law, linking it with copyright is just insane and it would do wrong to both IP law and defamation-/bullying-related law.

Click to expand...

Allowing someone to copyright their face, certainly wouldn't affect copyright law overall, nor would it prevent legal action on any other applicable statute.

Legitimate use of a person's photograph in or from such venues as news events press conferences, and social gatherings wouldn't necessarily be affected. A DCMA take down order would be a quick path to relief for individuals to whom this indignity has occurred.

Allowing someone to copyright their face, certainly wouldn't affect copyright law overall, nor would it prevent legal action on any other applicable statute.

Legitimate use of a person's photograph in or from such venues as news events press conferences, and social gatherings wouldn't necessarily be affected. A DCMA take down order would be a quick path to relief for individuals to whom this indignity has occurred.

Take the images down right now, prosecute and sue later.

Click to expand...

>Allowing someone to copyright their face, certainly wouldn't affect copyright law overall
w00t
>Legitimate use of a person's photograph in or from such venues as news events press conferences, and social gatherings wouldn't necessarily be affected.
So basically either they would be, or these copyrights couldn't be used in such way, so they wouldn't be copyrights, so let's put these anti-defamation rules that aren't copyrights in copyrights, because that's a great idea!

I think I'm done here, we've come to the point where we can no longer find a common thought to talk about. Have a nice day.

>Allowing someone to copyright their face, certainly wouldn't affect copyright law overall
w00t
>Legitimate use of a person's photograph in or from such venues as news events press conferences, and social gatherings wouldn't necessarily be affected.
So basically either they would be, or these copyrights couldn't be used in such way, so they wouldn't be copyrights, so let's put these anti-defamation rules that aren't copyrights in copyrights, because that's a great idea!

I think I'm done here, we've come to the point where we can no longer find a common thought to talk about. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

And it matters to me why that you don't agree with me? How does it change my life? Answer; it doesn't, and it doesn't. I don't need "common ground" with you, I'm fine without it. I was before you got here, and I'll likely be after you leave

The membership is always in flux here. All I see is the screen names getting fiercer, while the heads become thicker. As it stands, you can't use a persons image without a signed model release, without being sued > unless it's for purposes of legitimate news gathering"<. Or course, the parasites, whoops I meant "paparazzi" claim what they do is "legitimately gather news", while they hound people to death. A DCMA take down request might get rid of the offending material a slightly faster and entitle the victim to any proceeds gained from publishing the images. Tacking someone's face on another person's body, while that body is engaged in hard core sexual activities, is a whole new level of human sleaze. Lawsuits take time and a ton of the plaintiff's money.

Why is that, because you can't copy and summarily sell someone else's work? Or are you standing on some self created imaginary moral "high ground", just for your "principles"?

BTW, what have I suggested that would get rid of existing libel statutes? A DCMA take down request would morph into,"the plaintiff's or prosecution's exhibit one", and the lawsuit or criminal trial would continue as planned

Oh my, I better stop before I create an "enemys" for myself. And we've arrived at the bad pun portion of the program. Now you have yourself a nice day.

And it matters to me why that you don't agree with me? How does it change my life? Answer; it doesn't, and it doesn't. I don't need "common ground" with you, I'm fine without it. I was before you got here, and I'll likely be after you leave

The membership is always in flux here. All I see is the screen names getting fiercer, while the heads become thicker. As it stands, you can't use a persons image without a signed model release, without being sued > unless it's for purposes of legitimate news gathering"<. Or course, the parasites, whoops I meant "paparazzi" claim what they do is "gather news", while they hound people to death. A DCMA take down request might get rid of the offending material a slightly faster and entitle the victim to any proceeds gained from publishing the images.

Now, you've already explained how,you feel about copyrights Why is that, because you can't copy and summarily sell someone else's work? Or are you standing on some self created imaginary moral "high ground", just for your "principles"?
\
BTW, what have I suggested that would get rid of existing libel statutes? A DCMA take down request would morph into,"the plaintiff's or prosecution's exhibit one", and the lawsuit or criminal trial would continue as planned

Oh my, I better stop before I create an "enemys" for myself. And we've arrived at the bad pun portion of the program. Now you have yourself a nice day.

Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaat. I'll just address the parts that are about the original topic, ok?

Let me phrase it clearly once again: putting defamation-related rules into copyrights is just plain stupid. It misses the whole point and mixes enitrely different topics. And that's a perfect way to produce low quality regulations. The only argument I see for it is that DMCA takedown requests are quick. So what should we conclude from that? Maybe that there could be a way to create a similiar takedown request in case of defamation? Maybe we need to address creating fake likenesses specifically? That's the most obvious solution to me. But no, let's make people copyright their faces. Because that's totally what copyrights were intended for. Protecting intelectual property and creative works? No, that's not a thing, it's definitely about faces.

And no, I haven't expressed my opinion about the idea of copyrights, I only talked about existing regulations - they are just bad, in my opinion. I'm not sure if you misread or intentionally misinterpreted my comment.

Well, with the amount of plastic surgery that goes on with the rich and famous, someone's face could almost be considered, "a creative work".

We have different clauses of existing laws covering different actors. Your driver's license is a prime example. You can't have a passenger license, and hop into a big rig and drive that without getting a ticket.

Yes, I'm aware that allowing everyone to copyright their face would be an unimaginably large can of worms to open.

But arguably, someone's presentation of themselves, is a "creative work", particularly those who earn their living in part or in whole, because of their looks.

A DCMA takedown is quicker than a libel suit, and it wouldn't have people being milked to death by $1000.00 an hour lawyers for immediate relief. For example, a prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to file charges. Courts are backlogged.. The more famous a person is, the more a lawyer would charge them. Not to mention that a libel suits for damages, might not yield any proceeds. The pornographer merely declares bankruptcy, folds up that tent, and pitches another someplace else.

So it really isn't a bad idea to allow certain individuals, who are in the public eye, working with their appearance as a "creative work", a copyright. Your next door neighbor, not a chance in hell. Human nature sort of dictates that every time you accidentally got them in a cell phone photo, they'd sue you for infringement. And yes, certain people can be that petty.

And no, I haven't expressed my opinion about the idea of copyrights, I only talked about existing regulations - they are just bad, in my opinion. I'm not sure if you misread or intentionally misinterpreted my comment.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to make a blanket statement such, "copyright law is f***ed up enough as it is", then be prepared to deal with the open ended interpretations which might come of it.

Well, with the amount of plastic surgery that goes on with the rich and famous, someone's face could almost be considered, "a creative work".

We have different clauses of existing laws covering different actors. Your driver's license is a prime example. You can't have a passenger license, and hop into a big rig and drive that without getting a ticket.

Yes, I'm aware that allowing everyone to copyright their face would be an unimaginably large can of worms to open.

But arguably, someone's presentation of themselves, is a "creative work", particularly those who earn their living in part or in whole, because of their looks.

A DCMA takedown is quicker than a libel suit, and it wouldn't have people being milked to death by $1000.00 an hour lawyers for immediate relief. For example, a prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to file charges. Courts are backlogged.. The more famous a person is, the more a lawyer would charge them. Not to mention that a libel suits for damages, might not yield any proceeds. The pornographer merely declares bankruptcy, folds up that tent, and pitches another someplace else.

So it really isn't a bad idea to allow certain individuals, who are in the public eye, working with their appearance as a "creative work", a copyright. Your next door neighbor, not a chance in hell. Human nature sort of dictates that every time you accidentally got them in a cell phone photo, they'd sue you for infringement. And yes, certain people can be that petty.

So, a special clause for special circumstances, could be beneficial

Well, if you're going to make a blanket statement such, "copyright law is f***ed up enough as it is", then be prepared to deal with the open ended interpretations which might come of it.

Click to expand...

>Well, with the amount of plastic surgery that goes on with the rich and famous, someone's face could almost be considered, "a creative work".
Yeah, surgeon's creative work. Even if I agreed with your point of view, the serious flaw is that celebrities' looks are rarely their exclusive work. And that would make copyrighting it long, hard and questionable, because one would have to prove there are no third parties involved - or make an agreement with each and every of them.

>Well, with the amount of plastic surgery that goes on with the rich and famous, someone's face could almost be considered, "a creative work".
Yeah, surgeon's creative work. Even if I agreed with your point of view, the serious flaw is that celebrities' looks are rarely their exclusive work. And that would make copyrighting it long, hard and questionable, because one would have to prove there are no third parties involved - or make an agreement with each and every of them.

Click to expand...

Not really, just take a selfie, and update it every 5 years, and file that.

You're just not going to quit until you have the last word are you/ Oddly, I share that same personality defect. Game on.

From what I've seen, you know it all, but you don't know how to segment an individual phrase and reply post. You just throw up a quote, then repeat it again below. It winds up that you quote me twice, and whatever it is you think you have to say, gets lost in the miasma. Is it just laziness, or are you trying to be annoying there "Enemys".

I don't think the idea that a celebrity's face is "someone else's work" holds up all that well. Just because I dictate a book, and another person types it, doesn't make it their creative work.

Besides, in certain circumstances, I'm pretty sure the plastic surgeon(s), wouldn't exactly be tripping over one another to take credit for something like this:

EDIT: I you want the story on your new best friend "SquidSujrprise", he teaches 1st grade somewhere in Canada, whilst trying to dictate what gun control policy in the USA should be. And yeah, my character flaw, and the fact I'm a US citizen, will inspire me to argue that point all; day, and well into the night. The whole 1st grade teacher thing is where "he", is able to come up with such infantile crap like "crankytroll".. Say that a few time in a row, and you'll start to sound like a special needs six year old too.

Not really, just take a selfie, and update it every 5 years, and file that.

You're just not going to quit until you have the last word are you/ Oddly, I share that same personality defect. Game on.

From what I've seen, you know it all, but you don't know how to segment an individual phrase and reply post. You just throw up a quote, then repeat it again below. It winds up that you quote me twice, and whatever it is you think you have to say, gets lost in the miasma. Is it just laziness, or are you trying to be annoying there "Enemys".

I don't think the idea that a celebrity's face is "someone else's work" holds up all that well. Just because I dictate a book, and another person types it, doesn't make it their creative work.

Besides, in certain circumstances, I'm pretty sure the plastic surgeon(s), wouldn't exactly be tripping over one another to take credit for something like this:

Click to expand...

In random order:
- I hit the reply button just to ping you that I replied, then copy some quotes I want tk address specifically, because there is no automatic "quote part" on TS. Sorry if that annoys you.
- Selfies every 5 years might work for the future cases long after law is passed, but what about here and now? How do you prove your looks are your work only, if surgeons, gym assistants, diet specialists, makeup artists etc. helped you get where you are?
- Of course if you dictate a book, it's yours, but if you design a sculpture, but then someone else creates it in stone, the actual sculpture is a joint piece of work.

In random order:
- I hit the reply button just to ping you that I replied, then copy some quotes I want tk address specifically, because there is no automatic "quote part" on TS. Sorry if that annoys you..

Click to expand...

Granted I like to argue, but I try to be respectful and explicit about which exact point I'm replying.

As I keep having to point out, not everything has work "automatically". You copy and paste the quote header in front of the paragraph to which you're replying, and type "{/quote}" after it. (with standard brackets).

- Selfies every 5 years might work for the future cases long after law is passed, but what about here and now? How do you prove your looks are your work only, if surgeons, gym assistants, diet specialists, makeup artists etc. helped you get where you are?

Click to expand...

Copyright law already covers the illegal use of a photograph. If you make a copyright claim against a photograph, you certainly don't have to go through all the rigmarole you're suggesting. My image is up on that billboard. it's being used without my permission. I want to be compensated, or it has to be taken down. You certainly don't have to justify if you've had any plastic surgery, who did your makeup, or any of the other horse sh!t you're skipping down the yellow brick road singing about.

As the law stands now, the photographer would have to file for the take down, since the photo is, (one point we can agree on), his or her creative work. The signed model release, and the copyright filing of the image, is all he or she would need for a legitimate DMCA take down request.

But, that's a multi step process. The photographer's archives would have to be searched for the images used for modifying. I don't even remotely think that the pornographer would be working from "such and such actress" as a live model In the case of a famous person, that could easily be thousands upon thousands of images, spread across multiple studios.. The people who are pulling this crap, are every bit as aware of those facts as I am, and they're taking full advantage of them.

Allow a face to be copyrighted in certain special circumstances, and you eliminate almost all of the hoops someone to jump through to obtain relief.

Granted I like to argue, but I try to be respectful and explicit about which exact point I'm replying.

As I keep having to point out, not everything has work "automatically". You copy and paste the quote header in front of the paragraph to which you're replying, and type "{/quote}" after it. (with standard brackets).
Copyright law already covers the illegal use of a photograph. If you make a copyright claim against a photograph, you certainly don't have to go through all the rigmarole you're suggesting. My image is up on that billboard. it's being used without my permission. I want to be compensated, or it has to be taken down. You certainly don't have to justify if you've had any plastic surgery, who did your makeup, or any of the other horse sh!t you're skipping down the yellow brick road singing about.

As the law stands now, the photographer would have to file for the take down, since the photo is, (one point we can agree on), his or her creative work. The signed model release, and the copyright filing of the image, is all he or she would need for a legitimate DMCA take down request.

But, that's a multi step process. The photographer's archives would have to be searched for the images used for modifying. I don't even remotely think that the pornographer would be working from "such and such actress" as a live model In the case of a famous person, that could easily be thousands upon thousands of images, spread across multiple studios.. The people who are pulling this crap, are every bit as aware of those facts as I am, and they're taking full advantage of them.

Allow a face to be copyrighted in certain special circumstances, and you eliminate almost all of the hoops someone to jump through to obtain relief.

Click to expand...

Every well-behaved, up-to-date forum engine I've seen offers partial quotes, while TS doesn't. I get lazy sometimes and don't want to create quotes by hand all the time, so I'll pass this time.

And yeah, copyright covers the illegal use of photographs and images, but you proposed copyrighting faces. So faces were to be pieces of creative work. You do have to prove that you are the sole author of your creative work to exercise your copyrights (or make an agreement with co-authors), otherwise other authors also have parts of these rights. So you WOULD have to prove you didn't have a plastic surgery, your face wasn't altered by 3rd parties and so on. Otherwise your face isn't something you "created" on your own, so it couldn't be copyrighted as your own work without their explicit agreement. And it's even worse if we jump from faces to likenesses or general looks - there are even more parts of these that can be altered by 3rd parties.

Copyrights aside, if face was a piece of art (or creative work in general), every person that altered it would be a co-author of this piece.

Perhaps but, with my scenario, the burden of appeal would shift to the pornographer. If he or she thought their "rights were being violated", or the law was "unconstitutional", they could carry it all the way to the Supreme Court. In spite of the fact Larry Flint from "Hustler"magazine did this under the auspice of, "freedom of speech", I doubt the average porn king (or queen), using pirated images, would ever mount a worthwhile challenge.

And besides, while they were pissing away tons of time and money on such an action, civil and criminal litigation could be pursued against them.